Thursday
Jan092014
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Met bashes Cameron
Jan 9, 2014 Climate: MetOffice Climate: Parliament The Met Office, ever ready to knock back climate alarmism, has taken issue with David Cameron's linking of floods and climate change yesterday.
Nicola Maxey from the Met Office said the Prime Minister failed to draw the crucial distinction between weather and climate change.
“What happened at the end of December and at the beginning of January is weather,” she said.
“Climate change happens on a global scale, and weather happens at a local scale. Climate scientists have been saying that for quite a while.
“It’s impossible to say that these storms are more intense because of climate change.”
Reader Comments (66)
Haha, it's the way you tell it Bish.
A welcome comment from the Met Office, who still, we hope, retain interest in the real cause of British Weather extremes; the Jet Stream. The public statements of Julia Slingo in reference to (non-existent) evidence of extreme weather from global warming was less than helpful for the image of the Met office.
While there is no actual evidence - or even theory - to explain extreme weather from global warming (and no current unnatural warming anyway) there is at least some science that points to the jet stream being affected by solar minima, one of which we are right in the middle of.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24512-solar-activity-heads-for-lowest-low-in-four-centuries.html
"There may still be noticeable consequences. For instance, long term cold winters in the UK are common when solar activity is low. And less solar activity can slow the jet stream, triggering a suite of interlinked extreme weather events like the Russian heatwave of 2010, and the devastating floods in Pakistan that same year"
Of course it might be witchcraft too. Let's face it, if you are going to just invent stuff based on a gut feeling then where does it stop?
Wow! Nicola Maxey! Stands back in amazement!
Perhaps they've made a New Year's resolution? Long may it last.
'The Met Office, ever ready to knock back climate alarmism'
Experiment in how many keyboards and monitors need coffee cleaning today?
Haven't checked, but did the bbc/guardian report this?
Well, this is a turn out for the books! They normally claim, as I have pointed out before....."no single weather event can be linked to Climate Change, but yes, this is the sort of thing we expect to happen over time!"
Cameron would say what he said wouldn't he, even if the fact that he has a relative benefiting from robbing the poor to enrich wind farm owners had no relevance to his statement.
Its a bit of a dilemma for the bbc/guardian. One the one hand it bashes Cameron, but on the other it bashes the extreme weather caused by climate change mantra.
Perhaps they will report it as "Met Office criticises Cameron's climate knowledge" without going into details.
Confused: nah! Last night, the BBC broadcast people along the flooded Thames who said such things as: “This has happened before; the reason it is so bad now is because waterways are not being cleared,” and: “I was born here in a flood. Maybe that is why flooding seems to follow me…” In other words, no-one said anything that could imply it was all the fault of
“Goebbel warning™”erm,warble gloaming– aha! – Glow-bull Warming. Needless to say, this article had “technical problems” in the second showing.Sun editorial nails Cameron via GWPF
Flippin' 'eck - is the Met Office in danger of 'going native'...?
(If they're not careful, they'll be the subject of Osborne's 'cuts'....)
For those of you, like me, who (alright, sadly) have a 'routine' for lunchtime - Bishop Hill, then WUWT; then Chris Booker; followed by Dellers and Jo Nova - then you will have seen michel's interesting post on the matter of wind turbines further back on BH - vis-a-vis the cost of paying them to shut down when there is too much wind, and his suggestion that we pay farmers/landowners/ developers the government subsidy NOT to build wind farms..
THAT would have been an interesting question for Graham Stringer to have put to Deben..!
I would give this blog great credit for this response from the MO. They know that knowledgeable people are watching them who will not hesitate to point out anything the MO say which is not supported by evidence.
This is IT!
This is the moment we have been waiting for!
When science (albeit the previously shoddy stuff from the MO) starts to say "hang on a minute...."
They haven't exactly redeemed themselves yet, but the direction is good.
Cameron's "off the cuff" remarks, possibly drawn from Beddington's last week, demonstrate just how shallow his understanding of the issue is. This is good news since , when the time comes to about face, he will have no impediment to go with the flow - unlike Gummer who has so heavily invested treasure and reputation no exit strategy is possible. That the Met Office is prepared to put the PM down so promptly indicates no fear of retribution and that the realists in government are gaining the upper hand. Terry S @ 1.23 spots the triggers for internecine war breaking on the bandwagon. If the BBC gives even an inch, you will know the fat lady is about to sing.
The US is suffering through Schenider/Ehrlich acolyte Holdren trying to explain that while the 'polar cortex' is only weather and does not prove AGW, it is still due to AGW.
The herd mentality of our leaders on climate issues- that climate is even an issue at all- is a clear demonstration of how dysfunctional the West has become. They ignore science, and more important, critical thinking skills and cost us all money, security and opportunity costs.
diogenes2: Shallow ? shallow ? I know a pond skater with more depth...
A good Met Office News blog post finishes with this: [CURRENTLY NO EVIDENCE - David]
"While there’s currently no evidence to suggest that the UK is increasing in storminess, this is an active area of research under the national climate capability."
http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2014/01/03/uk-weather-how-stormy-has-it-been-and-why/
...and more backbone too!
If the Government Agencies maintained the rivers better rather than wasting money on their various contribution to the CAGW, then we might not so many people so badly affected.
Look.....what do you expect from a graduate in PPE who erected a wind turbine on his West London home?
I'd bet my pension that if we we're having a hot winter that would be climate not weather. I guess Slingo has looked at the claims that heat causes more cold and seen for herself that those proposing this odd notion will strongly resemble the shopkeeper in the MPFC parrot sketch. I hope I'm wrong, but there's still a "how dare you question "experts" like us" indignation on Twitter, even though I suspect it might be dawning on the current bunch of scientist that the scientific activists who caused the problem will not be around in 10 years time to account for their arrogant overconfidence in their own abilities, and those left will have to suffer the wrath of the politicos. I'll bet some would like to turn the clock back now.
That's Dame Slingo to you Geronimo ;-)
During DEFRA questions this morning, Mr Patterson was asked by, a Labour member, if he agreed with the PM, on this matter. He refused to answer the question: though everyone knows he is a sceptic. I am sure that had he known the Met Office's views, he would have admitted his disagreement with his boss.
Jan 9, 2014 at 2:03 PM | TheBigYinJames
This is IT!
This is the moment we have been waiting for!
When science (albeit the previously shoddy stuff from the MO) starts to say "hang on a minute...."
They haven't exactly redeemed themselves yet, but the direction is good.
*******************************
Maybe it just might be, BigYin.
Despite their own alarmist rhetoric is it too much to wonder if behind closed doors the guys n girls at the MO are looking at The Pause, plus a host of climate failures and are gently, ever-so carefully beginning to put out more conciliatory statements?
Isn't this the type of behaviour you would expect from an organisation that seeks to discretely row back a little from a previous position? They have to start somewhere, and Cameron gave them an open goal.
Watch for further 'less alarmist' statements in due course.
'Climate change happens on a global scale, and weather happens at a local scale'. Just note what a nonsense this is, as it completely destroys the empirical basis of climate science. The whole of climate consists of numerous local weather events. Just note how global temperature is established. This is the same as saying that your country becomes more and more wealthy in the course of time but that every local millionaire has nothing to do with it.
Jan 9, 2014 at 1:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterRadical Rodent I saw another BBC SW report when the Fishing boat Miranda came in yesterday. The interviewer breathlessly asked, Is this the worst weather you have EVER been out in? To which the Skipper answered "NO".. There was a silence while the poor interviewer retraced her steps to try another tack. Apart from Camerloon and Mr Invisible MP Rogerson I have heard very little mention of Climate Change. It does, of course suit the pollys to have something else to blame flooding on other than the incompetence of their own Ministries. Witness the debacle in New York caused by Government failure to take even minimal precautions, let alone write flood and weather awareness into their building code. Most of our local (minor) flooding can easily be traced back to building roads across flood plains with too few and too small culverts...doing the same with houses and attempting to channel rivers in pipes.
One swallow does not make a summer.
splitpin, no it doesn't. But let us take a little enjoyment from a single moment in time where the science establishment berates a politician for talking alarmist crap about climate. May it be the first of many.
Huh!
The MetOffice will stop spouting warming alarmism when Hell freezes over.
Oh, hang on a minute:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-25648513
Jan 9, 2014 at 2:39 PM | David Schofield
"That's Dame Slingo to you Geronimo ;-)"
It was Sir Anthony Blunt, but in my view he'd done less damage to the country than Lady Slingo and here activists scientists with their overbearing, arrogance.
Cheshire red
You said;
"Watch for further 'less alarmist' statements in due course."
I have repeated a post made elsewhere yesterday prior to seeing your post as it amplifies your comment;
------- -----
Kim
Tony, the connection of the crew at East Anglia to that work (changing historic temperatures) disturbs me greatly. That’s why the allusion to improvisation, worse, what’s the chance of competence?
===========
climatereason | January 9, 2014 at 5:26 am |
Kim
I don’t doubt their competence but do doubt whether the end result has any merit as representing the climate of the time, as the assumptions made in order to ‘correct’ the record are so large. It took me three reads to get through it as it is all very dense detective work.
Through my contact at the Met Office I hope to make contact with Phil Jones and find out his take on temperatures prior to 1538 for the second part of my article on ‘the long slow thaw.’
His book ‘history and climate’ is very good. He is also coming round to the notion that natural variability is greater than he originally believed and this appears to be taking root in the Met office as well. Reading some of his stuff it appears that he is rather more sceptical than we might think.
------ -------
tonyb
When you are a politician, it's possible to say anything. Lying comes naturally to them - though these days they call it 'spin'.
"One swallow does not make a summer"
That is true but a journey of a thousand miles, starts with the first step.
Credit where credit is due. Hats off to the Met; possibly for the first time.
I read this on uclimate.com and for a moment thought I must have done something terrible with the software.
To explain. uclimate.com reads all the climate blogs (including this one) and displays the first portion of each article. However, it has to clean up the text and in that process it removes image tags, formatting, etc,. That is not a hassle free exercise ... particularly as it shortens the text and then tries to reformat it as html.
So when I read "Nicola Maxey from the Met Office said the Prime Minister failed to draw the crucial distinction between weather and climate change." ... I naturally assumed that somehow the software had introduced something to turn the meaning on its head ... after all what is more plausible? That the PC program had become "self aware" and was turning warmist articles into sceptical ones or that the Met Office had suddenly become sceptics?
I can recommend Mike's new site, especially all those suffering from a lack of news now Tom Nelson's concentrating on Twitter and also a good alternative to Climate Depot.
Don't get excited. Nicola is a minnow among the many big sharks that feed off the Met Off budget. You won't hear Betts or Slingo, for instance, saying the same thing except with some broad caveats that will allow them to continue working from their beloved climate models. It keeps the money flowing for their super computer.
It's fascinating really, because the ECMWF/WMO unit is in Reading, just outside London, and their long range weather model is one of the best in the world as measured sensibly with reality and yet you brits are paying £millions so the MetOff can play space invaders all day long.
@ tonyb.
Interesting. Time will tell and I dare say the Bish' will be one of many keeping their eyes peeled for any such Met Office revision.
TinyCO2 - thanks.
And thanks for the suggestion about comments.
I'm not sure I answered your question about wordpress v. disqus. If not the answer is that it is technically possible to have comments using wordpress sign-ons but it would take an awful lot of time to implement it. So unless or until a lot of people start wanting to comment I would prefer to use disqus.
Stewgreen: "Sun editorial nails Cameron via GWPF"
I have said repeatedly on the pages of Bishophill that it will be The Sun wot wins the argument about climate change. When The Sun starts calling out the numpty politicians and greens and mocking them, then the argument is over.
Remember The Sun has a circulation of about 2.4 million. Unlike the Grauniad (200,000) or the Indy (76,000). The Mail has a circulation of 1.9 million (already publishing sceptical articles), and the Telegraph has circulation about 550,000 (which is double the Grauniad and Indy combined!).
I also note how, during these floods, it seems to me that the TV news reporters are finding it hard to get normal people to blame climate change, instead they are blaming practical issues like ditch clearing or inappropriate building and many of them clearly know that storms and floods have been previously worse in their own experiences.
Met Office always under fire failing to predict extreme winter weather and thousands motorists are left snow bound on the motorway or wet summers when the public are told to expect Hose Pipe bans.
Met Office just wants to distance itself from Cameron and any upcoming unpopular Carbon Taxes and avoid making itself into a political football.
Good to see MET office putting the record straight. Around New Year a commenter on Tallbloke was talking about rising cosmic ray flux (owing to dead Sun) and this would lead to deepening of the Polar Vortex. And I found this...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117713005474
Seems the BBC value the climate narrative far more than some easy Tory-bashing, it's nowhere
on the site that I can find.
I doubt it'll see the light of day, but I'm sure there have been some phone calls between the
Beeboids and the Metters behind the scenes today!
There's one thing believers hate and that's people breaking ranks!
I used to accuse the BBC of reacting to my posts here, and right on cue:
Storms' link to climate change uncertain - Met Office
Someone at the Met Office has been doing repairs on the story:
"The recent storms that have brought heavy rain and floods to much of the UK cannot definitely be linked to climate change, the Met Office has said."
Fools.
Quite a change from it being IMPOSSIBLE to link the two.
I hope Nicola Maxey still has her job.
Thank you to the Met Office for a sensible reality based statement about the current stormy period. It has happened before and it will happen again. I hope honesty doesn't get Nicola Maxey into trouble.
Well you have to keep talking up the idea that Call Me Dave's Dad-in-Law absolutely needs his reputed £1 grand a day of our money to save the planet.
Cameron is a total liability - I am beginning to suspect that Miliband junior couldn't be worse - Oh wait a minute, don't be silly David (as my mother would have said) but there is not a lot in it. What with his unsubstantiated remarks now on storms plus his Typhoon remarks a few weeks back, the guy is obviously fully on the Kool-aid.
Climate Science has driven the politics, and now is it surprising that having produced that monster, it is hard to rein it in? It was reported recently that one expert reviewer for AR5 has stated that the admission by "scientists" about how poor GCM's have been was watered down by the UN politicians/activists- truth and honesty didn't fit the plan.
We see everyday that politicians are now more extreme in their pronouncements about cAGW than most climate scientists - it is as if they have not had an update briefing for the last 5 years or so - the same applies to the Royal Society and sundry jobbing scientists who continue to spout about "global warming" in what may become a cooling world.
Keep an open mind.
No bonus for her this year then!
Another one who will be made "discredited", lol
Love it when they start to bite at each other's tails.
“It’s impossible to say that these storms are more intense because of climate change.” Met Office
"The recent storms that have brought heavy rain and floods to much of the UK cannot definitely be linked to climate change, the Met Office has said." BBC
Fools. LiarsMartin A
Both the BBC and the Met Office say something you agree with and you call them liars.
Are you saying that you do link these storms to climate change?